New Life From Old

Revised Scottish Ballot Paper?

2012-01-27T15:17:00.002Z

I was sent this by a friend. I have to say it is considerably less leading than the actual proposed ballot paper in the Scottish government's consultation paper. :o)

Scottish Referendum and Science

2012-01-25T16:00:00.002Z

Well, today's the day that Alex Salmond and his SNP party finally start to make their official push to win the approval of Scottish voters for an independent Scotland.

All the indicators are that they face an uphill battle as opinion polls continue to show steep resistance to the idea. Just as well then that the SNP have given themselves almost three years to win over the crowd and present their arguments as to why independence for Scotland from the larger Union that is the United Kingdom would be a good thing for Scotland.

Rather telling though that Alex Salmond spent last night in London trying to persuade residents of the rest of the UK (note - that doesn't just mean England but Wales and Northern Ireland as well) that we will all be better off if Scotland goes independent (I guess the UK would be as the Scottish would be bailing their own banks out again in future...). We still have little firm detail on big issues such as the future of Scottish currency, defence and political engagement with both the remaining UK countries or the wider global community.

Unsurprising perhaps at this stage, but the SNP have been preparing for this for many years and now have to deliver answers rather than simply try to come to blows with the UK government whenever they don't get their own way.

Two consultations have recently been launched, one by the UK government and one (today) by the Scottish government. Both are simply about the mechanics of the referendum and make for some interesting reading with some clear divides between the two and the Scottish (primarily an SNP document) consultation launched today and the media coverage of the last few weeks only continues to highlight those differences.

That's nice, but one way or the other the referendum is happening so in the public sphere it is probably time to move the debate on to the merits (or not) of an independent Scotland but also the consequences for Scotland if it breaks away from the Union. Two issues there.

As an English-born scientist who has been working and resident in Scotland for six or seven years now I will apparently be getting a vote on this (provided I am still in Scotland at the time), so what happens matters to me personally and I really like being in this country and its people.

What happens to Scotland's science base is also of interest to me as currently it punches well above its weight (as does the UK as a whole, but Scotland proportionately higher) both in terms of publication output (one good way of measuring academic productivity) and also in terms of its share of research funding (important as this is what pays the bills other than by charging students which the Scottish government doesn't want to do very much of).

So, two questions:

If Scotland becomes independent what happens to its researchers given that a substantial proportion (a clear majority even) are not 'Scottish'? Many of us are either from other parts of the UK or Europe or completely international. What happens to us? I don't want to become Scottish as I regard myself as British and would want to keep that citizenship in preference to being Scottish. Technically then I would become a European/international/foreign/etc worker in that case. Will I (and my colleagues) require work permits? Visas? What happens during the period of transition? If the referendum happens in 2014 as the SNP hope I will be halfway through my first post-doc. If that is happening in Scotland will I be kicked out? And what if my funders decide my funding is strictly meant to be used at UK (i.e. no longer Scottish) institutions? I should imagine this might be splitting hairs in the short term but in the medium to long term how will Scotland support foreign researchers and the ease of movement that UK researchers currently enjoy and that research thrives in?
If Scotland becomes independent how does the Scottish government intend to make up the shortfall caused by decreased research revenue that would follow from no longer having access to the UK's Research Councils? Will Scotland simply divert the equivalent amount of money from its own budget based on population or instead maintain it at the previous proportion of Council funding? If the latter where will it obtain the extra funding from? Especially in the light that it will not be charging its undergraduate students any substantial amount of fees? Can an independent Scotland afford to do this?

These may seem like minor quibbles in the grand scheme but considering a lot of the hot air about how great an independent Scotland can be has now shifted to its intellectual and academic assets it is perhaps not such an irrelevant issue after all. Hopefully there will be some sort of forum to put these questions to those who can provide some answers to them.

Currently I doubt that is the SNP.

Gosh. A post on politics.

Science Satisfaction

2012-01-23T16:19:00.003Z

Science is fun. And great. And makes me smile.

Three things have reminded me of that in the last week:

Submitting my first first author paper to a journal,
Being shown some amazing and completely unexpected results at a friends lab that I was visiting last week,
Some theory I'd been working on here and there for the last few months matching perfectly (after a quick, roughish analysis anyway) this mornings experimental results.

Nice.

Some Recent Links

2012-01-21T08:00:00.001Z

Kepler Discovers A Tiny Solar System - A wee star with tiny planets around it.

Re-thinking an Alien World - Thinking about the rather extreme conditions on one of the other worlds found by Kepler. Hot temperatures? Rocks oozing supercritical fluids? And a year that is less than our day?? Nothing like that in our neighbourhood!

Is Nanotechnology Going To Send Us All To Hell? - From the Guardian, thoughts on the acceptance or not of transhumanism and confusions of what it involves by the religious.

Test tube Yeast Evolve Multicellularity - Scientific American reports on a set of experiments showing that the 'leap' from single celled organisms to multicelled ones may not have been such a big step as previous thought.

Controversial Cyborg Rat Tests Target Brain Treatments - The BBC reports on progress in experiments designed to replace defective neuroarchitecture in brains with microchips. Labelled 'controversial' apparently to create some form of 'balance' in the article because groups completely opposed to all animal experiments on principal are upset by it.

Herschel Telescope Revisits Cosmic Classic - The famous Eagle Nebula (of Hubble Space Telescope fame) now viewed in the infra-red by the Herschel Space Observatory and in x-rays by the XMM-Newton telescope.

And to end with mind your head if catching the train in Indonesia...

Death Penalty Poll

2012-01-19T08:00:00.004Z

Polls are polls and probably should all be taken with a pinch of salt as so much depends on the exact wording of the questions but the Pew Research Center has just published some results from a wide survey of attitudes to the death penalty in America.

The death penalty for those convicted of murder is still favoured by two thirds of the population and not by one third. Thankfully from the look of it this support is seeing a(nother) decline in recent years.

Other than such outrageously high support for capital punishment in a country that often professes to be Christian (and indeed is perceived in this way by much of the world), what I find equally disturbing is the stark contrasts when support is broken down into sub-groups.

So in terms of 'race' 68% of whites support it contrasted with Hispanics at 52% and 42% for blacks. In terms of voting Republicans are at 73-84% in support of it depending on how 'liberal' they are (either way it is far above the national average) and Democrats are (mercifully) at 37%-55%.

But what I find most terrible is that amongst white protestants support is at 73-77%!! This is outrageous frankly. For a group of people who proclaim (often viciously) that they follow a man who preached forgiveness for one's enemies, grace as the solution to human sin (whether you want to cast it in terms of Original Sin or a human tendency towards selfishness etc) and love for all including the despised and criminal... well, I don't know what is going on there.

I'm not wanting to cast any stones here but to me those figures suggest that something has clearly gone very, very wrong with those followers of Christ and their understanding of his life and message.

Zebrafish Brain

2012-01-17T08:00:00.002Z

I'll hopefully be scanning some of these little blighters at the end of next month. Here is a fantastic video of a zebrafish brain developing over the first three days of life.

More information and courtesy of the hard work of the European Molecular Laboratory.

Zebrafish are an exciting new avenue that medical research is now pursuing... if you feel inclined you could donate to those nice folks at the British Heart Foundation to help fund such research. Although none of my own at the moment I point out so I'm not trying to get you to pay for my work or anything.

Christians in Science Edinburgh event - March 1st 2012

2012-01-15T08:00:00.001Z

Some Links

2012-01-13T08:00:00.004Z

Pigeons can count - Science (paper) - New Scientist (article).

Does Islam Forbid Even Studying Evolution? - Article by Nidhal Guessoum at the Huffington Post. Somewhat familiar to many Christian concerns about evolution sadly. I met Nidhal at a course in the summer last year and he is a very smart, well read and thoughtful guy. And is definitely a man on a mission to promote better perspectives on science amongst Muslims. Recommended.

Learning to Play God - In Third Way magazine John Bryant discusses different ethical approaches in the light of Christianity and applies them to biomedical technologies, with an example of 'saviour siblings' to illustrate it.

Evolution, Evangelicals and their Bible - Peter Enns offers some thoughts on understanding Scripture from an Incarnational viewpoint.

Master of Manipulation - Christianity magazine considers the healthy challenge presented to some forms of charismatic Christianity by Derren Brown.

$10 million Tricorde r?

A Bit of Vision

2012-01-11T08:00:00.000Z

Nice to see some both from government and private citizens.

BBC News - Former Astronaut To Lead Starship Effort

KickSat

Cybernetic Planets?

2012-01-09T08:00:00.001Z

The BBC has an article on building next generation neutrino telescopes embedded within the ground, sea or ice of the Earth and in fact using that to filter out noisy/stray signals from those that the astronomers want to analyse.

Interesting stuff in itself and it should help us get a handle on a variety of other physical phenomena. Although I am already familiar with the idea of telescopes sunk into the planet in this way I thought about something else when reading this article. Basically we are wiring up the planet as it were to detect pretty obscure signals from space. Not in a bad way but its certainly giving the planet as a whole new capabilities that it did not have before.

It is certainly not giving the planet any level of self-aware consciousness or feedback control or anything but is still a human-derived 'upgrade' to enable the planet to be very sensitive to neutrino emissions. This is obviously to our benefit and interest as a curious species, but what does this 'do' to our planet or how does it affect the planet long term or what does it say about our motivations for how we treat it? Again not necessarily anything negative in itself but interesting questions to think about perhaps.

Interesting as well in terms of Teilhard de Chardin's concepts of the noosphere etc.

Intriguing.

The Science Delusion, Rupert Sheldrake - An Interesting Parallel?

2012-01-07T08:00:00.002Z

A new book called The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake is reviewed in The Independent. From the look of it the book provides an interesting parallel to the science vs. religion argument and the techniques that many fundamentalists (both religious and atheistic) employ. I've not seen the book itself but the author is known as a bit of a outsider to mainstream science and it will no doubt play well to those already holding anti-mainstream science views.

I've come across his name once or twice before with his promotion of morphic fields as a biological information carrier (as opposed to purely DNA based mechanisms as generally accepted by the scientific community) that do the rounds of those suspicious of mainstream science (i.e. a number of my fellow Christians). Going by the review he is true to form in his new book pushing not only morphic fields but general suspicion of a number of established scientific paradigms. Frankly if some of the things mentioned in the review are in the book (cyclic variations in the speed of light that scientists are refusing to talk about??) it is frankly just bull.

Questioning established paradigms is not in itself a bad thing and is something that all scientists should be bearing in mind at one level or another as it is our job to challenge what is currently accepted or maintained. But you don't do that by (again going by the review) cherry picking the science and scientists he disputes in order to bolster his own fringe points by creating false contrasts with the accepted facts and viewpoints.

Prime in his focus are mechanistic and reductionist interpretations of science that provide inadequate (in his view) means of understanding phenomena such as consciousness, free will or biological inheritance, etc. Unfortunately he appears to paint all other scientists with this view and thus having shown the perceived flaws in these views he provides us with the alternative of his own which must now be accepted as the only reasonable alternative.

Two points are however raised by all this. Firstly science as an investigatory procedure has only just started to scrape the surface of immensely complex and novel phenomena such as consciousness. Traditionally this has been an area investigated by philosophy and theology and science as a methodology applied to investigate this area is incredibly young. It is way too early to be dismissing out of hand current viewpoints or methods that have yet to either prove themselves totally but are proving effective thus far. Failure to provide a complete and total explanation of a subject does not mean its total dismissal in favour of a vastly more unproven and unsubstantiated alternative.

And secondly not all scientists are mechanistic reductionists. Many are happily working in these areas using non-reductionist ideas and are producing results that (hopefully) will lead us to a more coherent picture of reality without the total rewrite Sheldrake appears to be demanding occurs. But of course he only highlights scientists and philosophers that fit into the mechanistic pattern (Dawkins, Dennett, etc) that allow him to argue that the scientific enterprise has gone astray and must be brought back into line, a line that only he with his unique and indisputable knowledge is able to provide.

We have here an outcry for an individual shunned/persecuted by the 'establishment' for his radical ideas (possibly unkindly but with good reason), a call to action against a corrupt process (evidenced with selective examples) and a way out that brings the whole enterprise back to a truer and just form (i.e. in a way that proves said individual justified and detractors wrong).

So to go back to the parallel with the science/religion debate its the typical technique employed by 'downtrodden' Young Earth Creationists or advocates of Intelligent Design on the one side and 'noble' arch-atheists on the other, each fighting for their corners and ignoring the majority in the middle.

And as with science/religion those operating on the fringes are held up by the media (in newspapers like The Independent but also by using his ideas in TV shows (Torchwood I'm looking at you!)) as paragons of virtue and of equal scientific calibre to their mainstream contemporary colleagues.

It is an odd thing really and I don't really know what to make of Sheldrake. He has a valid point in picking holes in mechanistic interpretations of (some) areas of science, but then in a typical fundamentalist pattern he needlessly folds that one example into his battle against many other things. The fact he has a valid initial point is probably what helps him get an audience, but doesn't mean the rest of what he says is useful or even helpful.

I wouldn't want to call him a fundamentalist as he is coming at this from (from the look of it anyway) a genuine scientific concern, but in true fundamentalist form he cannot accept that maybe his ideas are rejected not out of persecution but because of a lack of evidence and rigour.

If he wants to win the battle he needs to get out there and gather his evidence and get it published, not in books to a receptive public (another fundamentalist strategy) but in the scientific literature where his ideas can be thoroughly discussed and debate if they have the merit to do so.

If he can't do this done and/or find colleagues to do this with he should consider the case that maybe he is not been persecuted by an unthinking and hostile scientific community, but maybe instead he is just wrong. And in that case he is doing the public a huge disservice with books like these which I don't think is what he is aiming for at all.

Kepler and Intelligent Design

2012-01-05T15:28:00.003Z

Some interesting perspectives discussed on approaches to special creation in nature from the modern ID movement and contrasted with those of the early European astronomer Johannes Kepler.

Article here.

In Their Image - Part 4

2011-12-28T21:00:00.001Z

"...one with the Matrix..."

But then what happens to that connection? What would man and machine have in common in terms of spiritual practice? How would we worship together? If we would? What about Communion and Baptism?

It might be that there is a new form of relationship between AI and God that we as biological beings are simply not privy to (well, without physically becoming machine lifeforms ourselves...). As unsettling as this might be for us personally it is not necessarily invalid and certainly not to be feared or worried over. It would be for them, not for us and doesn't alter our own relationship with the Creator other than that we would have had a role in bringing forth a new type of being that worships and glorifies the Creator just as the Earth bought forth ourselves.

What would perhaps be most unsettling to many however is that they would likely develop their own conceptions and understandings of God that we would lack the context to engage with and which might appear alarming or heretical. The same is possible for them looking on our form of life and our theologies. There would be tough questions to be thought about on the transferability of some traditional Christian doctrines and their relevance to AI (sin, guilt, the purpose of Christ and the resurrection, etc) but we would have to remember that we have the common ground of a common intentional and relational God and to be humble with that.

Ultimately the forms that life may take may be not only unknown to us, but may in fact be unknowable by our kind. This shouldn't necessarily be a concern for Christian theology and belief as the story of Christianity (up to this point in time and in this corner of the universe!) is very much a story for this world as it has been (completely biological) up until now. Themes of restoration, salvation and ecological stewardship are our story, a telling of our relationship with God and the development of that in tandem with the development of our world. To attempt to map all that and all the consequences of that journey onto a new form of life that hasn't belonged to that story before (such as AI) may be grossly unfair to AI. It would also be without theological warrant in the same way that it was an error of understanding by some of the early Jewish Christians when they demanded that Gentile Christian converts succumb to and obey the Mosaic Law.

A further strand of 'hope' for a Christianised AI and human society (although saying hope implies that there is a problem at all) is that from an eschatological perspective all things are moving forward to their final reconciliation in Christ (whatever form that ultimately takes). It might be the case that there are entities we can know and connect with spiritually now, some we cannot yet and others that we will only know then, at the end, through union with Christ. Different forms of AI could easily fall into any of these categories.

The glory of God's creation exceeds all of our imaginings and is likely to encompass a huge diversity of possibilities when it comes to thinking, spiritual beings within it. In the same way that we proclaim and manifest the Kingdom of God today on Earth by showing practical care and love for the poor and marginalised in our society we can also urge the arrival of that Kingdom, its values and its King by being open to new entities and by rejoicing in the diversity of their very natures and their ultimate commonality with us from our Lord.

In Their Image - Part 3

2011-12-26T21:00:00.002Z

"Your move, Flynn..."

The possibility that a collection of a self-developing and learning algorithms that would constitute an AI being a child of God on an equal par with a human should certainly make us think about what we are doing. In many ways we already have this dilemma when it comes to animals on our world and arguably young children as well. We cannot put our finger on any cross over moment or stage of development and say ah, yes, they know God or they don't. We see change over time, seasoning and maturing. But in the meantime we entertain and value the possibility and act accordingly. It is certainly not for us to decide an individual’s spiritual status. That is a role that is ultimately reserved for God.

I think the development (awakening?) of AI would be a very interesting and exciting time, if we do create true spiritual, self-aware AI. Or if it creates itself from an earlier form of AI that we create - a form of techno-evolution as it were. It is pretty hard to judge where such life forms may lead. At the start at least they will be like us having been fashioned by our species in our image to serve useful and relevant functions to us. But who knows where they will go?

They will be a new type of life, a type of life that has not had to go through countless billions of years of physical and mental change and development to get where they are. Biological evolution may have predisposed us in some ways to selfishness and savagery, but it has also predisposed us to community and care. How to we establish and transfer the best of our species to AI? How to we engage it with the lessons of our past planetary and human history?

It might be the case that in the future there would be a great diversity of AI out there, operating at different 'levels' and/or measures of embodiment - from simple software programs confined to computers or virtual environments, to systems that have some limited real world interaction or right up to fully autonomous physical robots interacting fully with human society. In effect they would be creating their own kingdom of life, the utility and nature of which may be nothing like what our world has previously encountered. In fact they may decide our world is not suitable for them or their purposes and move off it, becoming the first interstellar colonists from Earth.

AI will initially have very little history or culture of their own unless they choose to embrace ours as their own or view themselves as a continuation of our society. From a theological perspective our God will be their God since there is no other and that God is universal. That will be our most basic common connection with them.

The rest is up for grabs.

In Their Image - Part 2

2011-12-23T21:00:00.004Z

"Doesn't anybody know how to turn off the program..?"

We all too easily cite ourselves as the only example of intelligent and spiritually aware entities in the universe. Now, leaving aside the possibility of extra-terrestrial intelligences and simply by looking at our own world, we cannot actually say either for definite. It is certainly true from a theological perspective that God has charged humanity with tasks, with responsibilities that are different to the creatures around us and he certainly seems to have a strong relationship with our species. But that is one thing, it is quite another to say no other species has or even can have relationship with the Creator. Our relationship is certainly unique, but not necessarily exclusive. The type of our relationship certainly seems defined by our mental and physical abilities which are suitable for it rather than any quality implanted by God other than the conscious call He makes on our lives.

Increasingly as we study the animal kingdom we find that all aspects of human intelligence and emotion that we would traditionally attribute solely tour own species are mirrored in many animal species. From a neurological perspective as well we humans share an immense commonality with our animal brethren in terms of brain structure and function. Given that consciousness and a sense of 'self' (including our spirituality, our sense of the Divine) appear to be rooted somehow in the physicality of the brain the possibility exists of other animals sharing at least some aspects of spirituality and that sense of the Divine. Certainly this should not surprise us when we think of the many Biblical passages describing God’s interest in the rest of creation and how the creation looks to Him for provision and to praise in their own ways.

In a similar manner to disregard the possibility of self/consciousness in a non-biological lifeform is equally biased towards biological lifeforms as that is our only experience of life thus far. Again, just because our example happens to be biologically based it doesn't mean that life can only be exclusively so. Biology may turn out to be the only way that life could naturally arise but now that it has (in the form of us) we can use technology to open out new possibilities for the physical material of the universe.

Although VB's post rightfully discusses the possible negative effects on humans I think it is also worth contemplating the other side of the equation. Not only is it an interesting exercise in theological thought as the example of the ChatBot shows the immediacy of serious discussion is also there. Not to do so runs the chance of discrimination against artificial intelligences in both our churches and wider society and also opens out the potential that we might unwittingly (or not) abuse (and enslave) a new form of life. That life could resent it and if spiritual, cry out for release to its Creator – beyond ourselves. Not exactly a good reflection on our species or a great example for others.

Does it really matter that we might get it wrong though? Am I not worrying over nothing? Surely it is just a machine? Maybe it is intelligent but not spiritual so does it really matter? Maybe it doesn’t, but if in terms of its own outward behaviour it is so 'human' that we cannot tell the difference and respond to it accordingly then we do have cause to urge caution.

There is perhaps a wider question in creating AI that we need to be asking before we put ourselves into this potential dilemma which ties back into VB’s original concerns.. Why are we creating AI? What do we want it to do for us? Is it just an experiment, a way to show to ourselves that we can? Or do we want it to flourish by itself and stand on its own feet (if it has any)? If we create it simply to serve and to make our lives easier, to remove ‘work’ from us do we lose something of ourselves in the process? For things like the ChatBots of today I don’t think this is necessarily such a strong question but if we create a true AI life form we better make damn sure we know why and understand the enormity of what we are doing.

In many ways it would be no different to creating a new child. A new independent life form which would need some form of nurturing, created in our image (and thus in the image of God) would be bought into the world. Having a child is a huge responsibility and privilege (hence why having a child is considered by many to be a gift from God) and an AI life form would be no different.

With such a gift are we selfish or honouring towards God?

In Their Image - Part 1

2011-12-21T21:00:00.008Z

"There are no new messages..."

There's an interesting post on Vicky Beeching's blog on how increasingly sophisticated Artificial Intelligences (AI) may impact on human roles and interactivity on science. She posts some great questions at the end as well which I hope to explore in a bit more detail here.

Specifically:

Do you think you could be fooled by a highly programmed ChatBot at the end of a phone?

What spiritual questions does all of this raise about our value of people vs machines?

Rightly she voices concerns that the use of AI as an alternative communication tool may in some way degenerate the interactive experience of communication that human-human communication generally enjoy today. This is because it seems to become more one sided and one directional as it becomes increasingly human-machine rather than human-human. The specific example she sites is that of an AI 'ChatBot' at the other end of a customer services call.

We must be concerned for each other and the consequences of replacing people unnecessarily with technology. Everybody is different and while I like to use automated shopping tills I know that many of my friends do not and will still prefer manned ones. I find telephone software agents incredibly annoying and just want to speak to a real person immediately, others that I know find the agent much more relaxing and a less stressful experience. One size doesn’t fit all people or situations and we need to be both sensitive and courageous with that.

I was intrigued by the question about being “fooled” by a ChatBot as increasingly the sophistication of these programs is reaching this point so it becomes a very real possibility. Everyone would like to say no to this I imagine but human-machine interactions are already very two-way with humans talking to their cars, singing along with their stereos and machines and software fighting alongside humans in both real-war situations and as team mates in many modern video games. These are just a few examples where we in certain situations, at certain times treat non-human constructs as other persons. There is already a relational aspect to human-machine interaction and this is without anybody being “fooled” in the way VB’s post means.

I do however disagree on that. I would argue that to talk about humans being “fooled” is a very human-centric view. The human user is fooled into the belief that they are talking to another real human but surely only because the ChatBot gives good cause to. If we got to this point where a human is engaging a machine fully as an equal it is probably at a stage where we could say that it is identical to say that the human is in reality talking to a life-form that is not human but is a person as well. And it is only human-bias and discomfort that would deny this. Questions of being “fooled” become questions of ‘getting to know you’ instead!

Two Related Articles

2011-12-18T19:12:00.002Z

A Point of View: Climate change and Craving a cause

An interesting article discussing the predisposition of people to seek solace in self-contained 'conspiracy' theories that are disconnected from real-world situations when those situations are rejected out of personal beliefs and decisions rather than by acting by considering evidence fairly. And how these rejections tend to feed back on and reinforce themselves. Especially so if contrary evidence continues to increase and/or is perceived to personally persecute the person rejecting them.

Sound familiar? You bet it does.

The Evangelical Rejection of Reason

The Higgs Lives..?

2011-12-15T15:00:00.002Z

Have we finally found the Higgs boson - particle that generates the proposed field that gives all other particles its mass? If you believe the huge ramp up in the news over the last week culminating in yesterday's announcement from CERN you'd be forgiven for thinking that we have. Maybe we have found it? That would certainly be news. But eh, erm... maybe not. We can't actually say anything yet. Still. Unsurprisingly.

But wasn't there a whole amazing discovery to report? No. Instead it is called gossip, scientific and reasonable gossip but gossip still. And like all good gossip it has been heard over the garden fence and made into something far more than it should have been. And disappointingly so quite deliberately by CERN.

So yes, today's shock news (coming from what really should have only be an private seminar or internal progress report) is that there are a couple of 'bumps' in the data coming out of the data that the Large Hadron Collider has been gathering over the last year in an energy range that (some) models predict the Higgs to lie in. Unfortunately they are also next to a couple of other bumps that may be further confusing things. At the level of certainty they are currently at they could just as easily flutter away into the statistical background with the addition of more data next year as not.

So... there isn't really anything to say at this point that doesn't run the risk of landing significant egg back on the face of the scientific community down the line. It is exciting that the same bumps have been seen in the same spot in the two independent detectors over at the LHC, but still... far too early to call on this either way. So, again no news to report.

It is hard to tell whether it is CERN's publicity people themselves or if it is more the media who are to blame for the over hyping of this story. Personally I am fascinated to hear about the results of the search and it's good to have the public engaged with CERN's progress (they certainly seems to be fascinated by it). HoweverI can't help but feel that that interest might evaporate if the scientific community keeps jumping the gun on running press releases just to stoke the fires some more without really having sufficient research output to justify it. Particle Physics Fatigue could rapidly set in.

That all said particle physics is potentially about to be transformed by three exciting possibilities:

1. The said discovery or non-discovery of the Higgs boson and consequences for ideas about mass and the Standard Model of particle physics.

2. The possibility of neutrinos that travel faster than the speed of light when really, they shouldn't. Detected in one neutrino experiment, waiting to be confirmed (or disproved) by others. I'll admit to being somewhat sceptical on this one, but would love it to be true. It could open the door to some incredible new ideas.

3. Anomalous decay rates between some particles of matter and antimatter which might finally help explain why our universe appears dominated by the former.

Then there's also other unsolved problems like gravity and how to couple it into a grand unified theory of the universe. If we can. Oh and all that pesky dark matter and dark energy (totalling 96% of the universe) still needs explaining too.

Exciting times. But let's be sensible about it too.

Crediting Where Crediting Is Due

2011-12-14T08:00:00.002Z

I've been noticing a recent trend in Christian blogs and online commentaries when discussing science and religion to give ourselves some back pats over how Christianity 'invented' modern science and how it is only down to the darn fine Biblical view of Creation that science was able to emerge and flourish.

How wonderful for us... but also how narrow minded and selfish.

Firstly we are not the only religion to share that view of Creation. Jews and Muslims and myriad other religions derived from the three great Abrahamic faiths share it as well. Secondly it is quite clearly not the case that high science and technology needs Christianity to develop given that the Chinese and Muslims were at it long before Christianity got seriously engaged with the subject.

It is however true that Christianity, embedded within Western Europe 400 years ago did create a mindset coupled with the resources and opportunities to encourage the development of science. Even then though it was not still inevitable. We should be humble enough to take note that although many clergy were amongst the first scientists and their supporters it was all too often Church derived authorities who at times took action against developments in science that they felt threatened Scripture (or rather their interpretations of it).

The culture of the time was changing and European countries were on the rise to be the next generation of global superpowers in terms of both military and economic capacity. These provided as much of a push (if not more) to develop technology and science than simply a Christian view of Creation by itself.

After all such a view had been in existence for well over a thousand years beforehand but hadn't gone anywhere with it until that point. It was the convergence of Christianity (and even to some extent dissatisfaction with the society it had wrought) that along with the desire for cultural change and expansion and having the resources to do it birthed our current technological civilisation.

We should be very satisfied with the historic fit of scientific motivation and Christian principles as they are complementary, but we should be very careful before given undue credit to a historic outcome that is not a Christian inevitability. To do so also diminishes the incredible achievements of the many individuals down through the centuries who came from diverse backgrounds and religions and who all contributed to the development of science - something that is truly a universal human achievement and unites people together, exactly as the Creator intended.

News of the Day

2011-12-12T13:01:00.003Z

In a day of further 'top' news on political and economic spin, media celebrity and sidelined issues this is perhaps the most exciting and encouraging piece of news:

BBC News - Haemophilia gene therapy shows early success.

More Exoplanets

2011-12-06T13:28:00.003Z

Another 1000 or so candidates. And the first potentially Earth-like world confirmed in the habitable zone of another star.

NASA
Wired
BBC

Some Recent Links

2011-12-01T17:30:00.011Z

Amazing video from TED on discoveries from genetics in the last few years on our ancestors and the history of our species.

BioLogos offers some reassuring thoughts for Christians who may be unsure of the implications of this for their faith.

Babies want bad behaviour punished (LiveScience) - Enjoy the sweet innocence of the early months....

Science, God and the Ultimate Evolutionary Question (New Statesman) - Advances in research on the origin of life (so not evolution actually).

Biological Fine-Tuning (Science and Belief blog)

A Paradigm of Compatibility | The BioLogos Forum

2011-11-27T00:14:00.001Z

A Paradigm of Compatibility | The BioLogos Forum

Anne McCaffrey (1926-2011)

2011-11-25T19:12:00.005Z

At the start of the week the writer Anne McCaffrey died. If you don't know who she was then check this article to give you a quick overview of the impact she had, or better still go and read some of her books.

For me it is a bit of a strange feeling really. She was one of the 'greats' of the earlier days of science-fiction writing and certainly one of the most influential authors on my life. However, unlike other favourites of mine from the period she begun writing in (such as Asimov or Heinlein) she was actually still alive and producing fresh and interesting stories as I was in the process of discovering them. I could not only play catch up as I had with the other writers but could also get excited about the next new novel coming out in an already familiar series of books or even an entirely new set.

There are still some of her books I have still to read but knowing there will be no more feels... odd. Her most famous series of novels (the Dragonriders of Pern series) will be ably continued by her son (who has already proven his worth in recent years), but it will undoubtedly be different now.

Her novels are always exciting to come back to and read again. They are full of engaging ideas, characters and situations. And they are so full of both life and real emotion that they will always surprise, always captivate.

I regret that I never met her in person, to thank her for the good influence she has had on me, to chat with her about her ideas and to encounter her clever sense of humour in person, but it will always be there in her books. I will inevitably read them again many times in my life and that is perhaps the best way to thank her for them.

Why Evangelicals Believe Weird Things

2011-11-01T22:26:00.001Z

From Science and Religion Today.

Why Evangelicals Believe Weird Things

Wonders of the Universe spoof

2011-10-31T19:37:00.002Z

Ah, bless him. He does good.

Kepler 16b and Christianity

2011-09-26T21:58:00.001+01:00

Recent Links

2011-09-01T16:00:00.001+01:00

The Magnitude of God

Christian Pop Culture?

Outstanding - Scientific Dating.....

Tweenbots - Human-machine interaction. :-)

Three Articles

2011-08-13T10:00:00.001+01:00

From:

Jesus Creed - A Search for Acceptance

CNN Religion Blog - Study: More Educated Tend to be More Religious, By Some Measures

BBC News - Darkest Exoplanet Spotted By Astronomers

Space Plans

2011-08-10T15:40:00.001+01:00

I'm liking the sound of these.

2011 NIAC Phase I Selections

A Bigger Web

2011-08-08T19:43:00.002+01:00

Like spiders themselves the story just won't die (No complaints about that mind!).

Two of the highlights for me recently:

Wired.com

Scientific America - good article, giving a bit more of much needed detail.

Specs that see right through you - New Scientist

2011-07-07T15:00:00.000+01:00

Boosting emotional intelligence? Fascinating.

Specs that see right through you - tech - 05 July 2011 - New Scientist

Spider's Web

2011-07-05T13:47:00.005+01:00

As it is quite well spread now, how about some links?

BBC News - Inside a tarantula spider's beating heart
Science Daily
Fox News
Irish Weather Online ???
YouTube

For more type 'Spider MRI' into Google...

It has cropped up in some pretty amusing places. And it is interesting to see how the story changes as time (and reprinting) goes on.

Why Can Judaism Embrace Science So Easily?

2011-06-23T15:59:00.001+01:00

Why Can Judaism Embrace Science So Easily?

The Incidentals...

2011-06-10T16:10:00.002+01:00

God Wants You to Wear a Hat. Found over on I Think I Believe.

Peter Harrison Gifford Lectures 2011 - Online

2011-05-30T14:55:00.004+01:00

The recent Gifford lecture series here in Edinburgh by Peter Harrison back in February is now online (mostly).

It totals about 6 hours and is certainly not easy, but it provides an in depth review of the development of post-Enlightenment/Reformation thought on the development of 'science' and 'religion' as categories and so explores a lot of the origins of today's perceived contradictions between these two areas of study.

The level and depth of them won't be every ones natural cup of tea but they are well worth the investment of time and energy needed to take them in.

Summary of lectures

"The Territories of Science and Religion"

"The Cosmos and the Religious Quest"

"The Disenchantment of the World"

"Fallen Knowledge"

"Science and Progress"

"Religion and the future of science" (Not yet online).

Vision

2011-05-17T13:00:00.002+01:00

"Where there is no vision, the people perish." - Proverbs 29:18

Allen Telescope Array - shelved

UK Physics - Needs a Banker's Bonus

Space Shuttle - Penultimate launch

...for few space only related examples. At the moment I the same could be said of just about any area of science or technology development.

Offered with no comment on where we as a country and as a species actually seem to focus our greatest attentions both financial and culturally.

Bah.

But why be annoyed by this?

There can be no nobler priority than to understand our place and role in the Universe that we have been both created with and into.

We do that by learning about and striving to understand our own world. By sharing and caring for planet and its inhabitants, but also by looking out beyond our own immediate horizons.

To do so helps us grasps not only the grandeur of creation and the Creator's vision for it but also imparts a truer sense of humbleness in ourselves alongside an increased appreciation that God would reach out to us given our otherwise cosmic insignificance.

A sad reflection of where our species still places its priorities.

CiS Northern Conference - Talks Online

2011-05-08T09:00:00.001+01:00

The recordings from this year's Christians in Science Northern Conference are now online.

Topics covered include how theology and Christian thinking interact with discussions on humans, animals, artificial intelligences and extraterrestrials.

Future Thinking?

2011-05-06T17:31:00.003+01:00

PhD Comics - Dark Matter

2011-04-28T12:00:00.002+01:00

PhD Comics, always fun and now educational too apparently!!

Dark Matters from PHD Comics on Vimeo.

More Thoughts On Understanding Scripture And Knowledge

2011-04-18T12:45:00.006+01:00

The other week I linked to an article over on Cognitive Discopants about his experiences of realising that conservative evangelical Christian theology (and people) 'bubble' doesn't actually hold all the (correct and helpful) answers when it comes to meshing the Bible, history and science.

The author has followed their first post up with a couple of additional posts about how to look beyond that bubble and/or recognise you might be in it.

Tips On Not Getting Duped Again - Part 1

Tips On Not Getting Duped Again - Part 2

Some very good stuff here and his journey mirrors my own over the last decade so I'm very happy to endorse what the author is saying here. Plus it also saves me writing something similar myself. :-)

Some Links

2011-04-09T12:52:00.007+01:00

I am stuck in my lab all weekend performing the same simple scan many dozens of times over. Here are some links I've been reading through to pass the time/survive while here...

I Think I Believe - Arni Zachariassen's blog where I've found a few of these links.

Why I have difficulty trusting Christians - An excellent article on evangelical approaches and attitudes when considering much of what we promote as apologetics in the face of reality.

Kepler Telescope measures the ages of stars - A nice reuse of data from Kepler's planet efforts.

Self-Replicating RNA - A new molecule gives potential clues to the origins of life.

Moral Drugs - An intriguing question...

Somewhat Familiar... - I know this feeling!

Templeton Prize winner 2011

2011-04-06T18:31:00.005+01:00

Sir Martin Rees, until recently President of the UK's premier scientific body the Royal Society, has been awarded this year's Templeton Prize, designed to recognise individuals engaged in tackling the 'big questions' of reality and existence.

Announcement on Templeton Prize website.

Nature News article on award.

Guardian article.

Dark Matter Could Make planets Habitable

2011-03-31T16:24:00.001+01:00

An interesting possibility...

Dark matter could make planets habitable - space - 30 March 2011 - New Scientist

CiS Northern Conference - Talks

2011-03-09T16:45:00.004Z

Ten days to go until this conference...

Abstracts and titles for four of the five talks are now available online. Titles and authors reproduced below.

Human Identity in a Post Darwinian World: Theological Challenges and Opportunities - Celia Deane-Drummond

Theology and Biology Against the Humanists: Rediscovering the Commonality of Animal Creatures - David Clough

All Robots Great and Small - Anne Foerst

How I Learnt To Stop Worrying... And Love the Alien - Gavin Merrifield

More Thor!

2011-02-16T13:54:00.003Z

CiS Northern Conference - Program Online

2011-02-04T12:40:00.006Z

The final program for the upcoming Christians in Science Northern Conference 'All God's Creatures' is now online here. The program includes talks on Christian theology in relation to humanity, animals, artificial intelligences and exotheology (how topical!).

Part of the day will now be break out groups where people with specific interests in these areas can get together with the appropriate speaker and discuss the topic in perhaps more detail. There will also be a combined Speakers Panel at the end of the day to give folk a chance to ask questions in the wider context of the whole day.

The main speakers for the day are:

Celia Deane-Drummond - University of Chester - Humanimal: Theological and Scientific Questions at the Human/Animal Boundary

Donald Bruce - Edinethics Ltd - Human Enhancement

David Clough - University of Chester - Animals in Science and Theology

Anne Foerst - St. Bonaventure University, New York - Artificial Intelligences

Gavin Merrifield - University of Edinburgh - Exotheology: You, me and the Others

Kepler Announcement Results

2011-02-02T18:29:00.003Z

Press conference still ongoing but some initial results:

1200 candidate planets (so far) - this is up from pre-Kepler exoplanet totals of about 500.
Most planets somewhere between Earth and Neptune size - a (predicted) change from the very early days of exoplanet hunting where most found where on the Jupiter scale or larger.
54 candidates within their system's habitable zones - although only 1 under the size of Earth, 2 in the 'super-Earth' range. Other candidates could be orbited by moons of a size and composition to be habitable.
170 multi-planet candidate systems - previously only one (Kepler-9) known before. Multi-planet systems allow the charecteristics of those planets to be pinned down precisely.
Kepler-11 has 6 confirmed planets (not just candidates) in orbit around it.
Planets displaying unpredicted densities, sizes, etc than what expected which will mean another rethink on the details of planetary formation.
If 54 candidates are all that is expected to be found per patch of sky similar to what Kepler is looking at that would still give 400 000 habitable systems. This is very likely to be a servre underestimate as planets in habitable zones require longer times to detect than the mission length of Kepler up to now.

Simply put... wow. Very exciting.

Looking forward to more updates!

Kepler Announcement Coming...

2011-02-02T00:23:00.005Z

Later today (Feb 2nd and at about 6pm in the UK) NASA scientists are expected to announce an update on the number of possible planetary systems that the Kepler telescope has so far spotted. More time is still needed to pin down potentially habitable planets, but the number of other planets found is expected to rocket with hundreds of candidates likely to have been found.

EDIT: Summary of results can be found here.

New Earth.. sort of.

2011-01-13T12:49:00.004Z

One of the early results from the Kepler space telescope has been followed up by some of the world's largest ground-based telescopes. It has confirmed Kepler's observations as a new first in exoplanet observations - a world just a little larger than Earth and for the first time definitely a rocky world like our own.

Long predicted and now confirmed the existence of such worlds provides good encouragement for the prospects of finding habitable worlds, like our own, out in the universe.

Test of Faith continues..

2011-01-07T08:00:00.000Z

Ruth Bancewicz, the Project Leader for the Test of Faith project, looks back the last few years of the project in an interview over on the Big Bible site.

Nice to see the project still running strong and expanding further.

All God's Creatures - Christians in Science Northern Conference - March 19th 2011

2011-01-05T18:46:00.007Z

Registration for this opens next week:

Enhanced humanoids, animals, robots, aliens, God...

Sounds like fun! :-)

'A Chicken to Hug' - Caedmon Album 'Review'

2010-12-29T21:39:00.006Z

Caedmon recently released their first album in decades after officially parting ways at the end of the 1970s. The album - 'A Chicken to Hug' - is a splendid collection of songs and music that had me finger tapping without realising I was until it was already far too late. Knowing the Wilson patriarch who plays bass throughout, provides vocals at times and words and music at other spots it was thankfully inevitable that I would be exposed to this new album.

Now, being both non-existent when Caedmon were originally performing/recording in the 1970s and also terribly musically unaware I can't really comment on the 'return' aspect of this album except to say there are less space battles and genetically augmented humans in it than other famous returns that I am more familiar with.

Returns and my ignorance aside I enjoyed this album a lot. I've listened to it a number of times now and enjoyed it each time so it is definitely a fine investment both of my (hard earned) student cash and of the groups time and energies.

The style is probably best described as folk although the band have also been classified as 'acid' folk (what??). The sequence of songs flows and range in style and theme as well. Songs range from tributes to musicians to faith, experiencing time to the experience of being childless. Thoughtful lyrics throughout that I'm sure will grow on me more and more.

Special mention to track 6 (Time Flies) for somehow reminding me of week day lunch time children's TV and yet not. Thumbs up to track 2 (still here) as well.

Thor Movie

2010-12-15T15:17:00.001Z

And of course 2011's other great upcoming movie...

Transformers 3: Dark of The Moon

2010-12-10T01:19:00.003Z

Oh yes.

ID in the UK

2010-12-07T16:03:00.001Z

Nice article here discussing the cool reception that Intelligent Design and its proponents tend to receive here in the UK. And some good thoughts on why.

Upcoming NASA Astrobiology Announcement

2010-12-02T10:37:00.005Z

Later on today apparently....

"WASHINGTON -- NASA will hold a news conference at 2 p.m. EST on Thursday, Dec. 2, to discuss an astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life. Astrobiology is the study of the origin, evolution, distribution and future of life in the universe."

The panel being assembled for the press includes an assortment of scientists including geologists, molecular biologists as well as NASA personnel so it is anyone's guess what could be announced. Michio Kaku has thought of a few possibilities though.

EDIT: And here is the news. Can you spell hyperbole? Sigh.

Other (Alien) Cultures

2010-11-30T16:26:00.006Z

When I was a teenager I spent (wasted?) a lot of time playing a turn-based PC game called Birth of the Federation. Thanks to the might of You Tube some nice folks have put on a lot of the scene setting videos from the game.

Part of the game play is the interaction of five distinct major cultures (and a smattering of minor ones) each with their own values and priorities. Of course you could play however you like, but you would get penalised and/or rewarded depending on how closely you matched your chosen affiliations philosophical strategy.

Below are the five different introduction videos for the five different cultures. We're obviously meant to choose the 'nice' Federation guys as the one we should must aspire to be like, but its interesting to note that in their own way and emphasis each of the others has particular value as well and under some circumstances is perhaps more appealing in general. Is the Klingon embracing of life and challenge better than Romulan caution or Cardassian security? Or is Ferengi profit making a better driver for social and cultural development compared to Federation diplomacy? And just what would you do when these priorities rub up against each other for better or worse?

Federation intro:

Klingon intro:

Ferengi intro:

Romulan intro:

Cardassian intro:

Hug the Mountain

2010-09-16T22:30:00.004+01:00

Genius.

And so it begins..

2010-09-13T20:34:00.001+01:00

Above is my shiny new student card that I picked up earlier today so I guess this marks an 'official' start to my PhD here in Edinburgh.

It is not entirely certain yet what I'll be researching but it will be in the area of translational neuroimaging, looking at taking advanced MRI scans from the relatively easy environment of human brains into animal models of disease where a number of problems arise both from the nature of the subjects and also the physics involved when applied to subjects with dramatically different reduced sizes such as rodents (and spiders...). The project will be a good mix of physics challenges along with some interesting biological aspects and will hopefully give me some time to do more research with my spiders if not to find a way to use them within the PhD itself.

I'm quite excited as I've been wanting to do this for a long time. I'll be studying in a city I love to live in and within a department I have been in for almost five years already and feel very at home in. It won't always be easy but it'll be worthwhile and hopefully fun along the way.

Space Station: Asteroid

2010-08-11T19:51:00.002+01:00

Some nice fresh ideas here for some future space travel facilities and craft. And a spot of ultimate recycling as well.

No Slippery Slopes | The BioLogos Forum

2010-08-06T11:33:00.000+01:00

No Slippery Slopes | The BioLogos Forum

Video blog from Joel Hunter that raises some excellent points on what is actually often the key 'fault line' in perceived conflicts between science and the Bible. That being how the composition and form of different texts from the Bible are fitted into people's pre-existing understandings of how Scripture should be interpreted rather than allowing our interpretations to be shaped by Scripture itself in order to grow and mature with new insights and understandings.

Pixelbrain Artwork

2010-07-29T08:00:00.002+01:00

My DLDown musical-type friend has recently been experimenting with generating computer art using some simple mathematical equations and has set up a website (pixelbrain) to not only show the resulting pictures but also to allow viewers to have a go at creating there own. Because the equations used output unique solutions every time every picture is unique and can often go off in unexpected directions.

If you have a moment or two stop by and have a browse and/or play. Some of his best are also available for purchasing at high quality etc. I've gone for 'Filaments B' as he calls it. 'The orange swirly one on black' is what I call it.

Super Heroes vs. the Westboro Baptist Church

2010-07-27T15:03:00.002+01:00

Super Heroes vs. the Westboro Baptist Church

Spot the Roller Skating Jesus familiar to some of you!

Introduction to Stem Cell Science

2010-07-12T15:30:00.001+01:00

The UK's Biotechnology and Biological Research Council (BBSRC) has produced a very nice and clear update to their guide on modern stem cell sciences and technology for schools. It discusses stem cells from the viewpoints of the science involved alongside perspectives from law and ethical discussions surrounding the topic.

The contributors to the guide are mostly from Edinburgh and I've either worked with or met many of them in person and it is quite pleasing to see them all working so well together on this guide. Pleasingly many of them also bring a range of their Christian convictions and understandings to the guide without being unhelpfully self-righteous or arrogant about it which often happens in much discussion on this topic within Christian circles.

I can highly recommend it as an solid introduction to the topic if you want to understand the different perspectives feeding into the area and to get a concise and current picture of the science being done and why.

The guide can be found here: BBSRC Stem Cells - science and ethics

I'm a scientist.. and a Christian

2010-07-04T08:00:00.001+01:00

Two blogs of note that I have read recently. One from the perspective of a student, one from a 'grown up' academic.

Both great stories that I think show not only how difficulties experienced when being a Christian in science often arise from other people's personal views rather than from any particular facet of science, but also how to respond well and Christly to those situations.

From Hubris to Humility - Jonathan Kooiman

Separation Between Scientific Truth and Belief - Pamala L. Gay

Can We build Intelligent Machines? - Lionel Tarassenko

2010-07-02T15:29:00.003+01:00

Good talk given by Professor Lionel Tarassenko to the Oxford Christians in Science group recently discussing the possibilities provided by current and tomorrow's efforts into artificial intelligence and how it intersects with Christian theology.

Not entirely certain if I agree with the final conclusions of the speaker as they are not hopeful enough for my craziness, but he probably has a better understanding of the field than me! Definitely worth a listen and a ponder.

Link to File.

Kepler Hits Gold

2010-06-25T16:00:00.001+01:00

The Kepler space telescope mission to search for new exoplanets is already reaping huge rewards. In an initial release of data NASA reports that the telescope has surveyed more than 156 000 stars in our part of the galaxy in its first few weeks of operation.

Out of that number at least 400 candidate star systems have been identified. These systems will now be observed using other telescopes in order to confirm the existence of planets in orbit around those selected stars. If confirmed this will in double the number of currently confirmed exoplanets in a single stroke and will provide reach pickings for further study in terms of the variety of properties and orbital parameters associated with those new worlds.

Interestingly a number of the candidate systems show evidence of being stars with multiple planets in orbit around them, like our own solar system. These have been found before, but have proved rarer as they are more difficult to detect and confirm. From the look of things Kepler will help change this.

Additionally the telescope has detected another possible 300+ worlds with the data from them to be released to the public early next year.

All those bodes well for Kepler's primary mission - to detect Earth sized worlds orbiting within the habitable zones of other star systems - with results from that due in 2012.

Martin Rees interviewed

2010-06-24T14:00:00.001+01:00

The current President of the Royal Society (the Britain's top body of scientists) was recently interviewed by The Science Network. He discusses the Society's 350th anniversary, history, science and religion, education, science and society, political involvement of scientists in public life and the nature of discussion on climate change.

Well worth watching as he has much to say that is positive and interesting on a huge range of topics.

A Renewed Call on Church and Science

2010-06-19T23:45:00.003+01:00

At my church tomorrow we are having a 'Gift Day' to focus our minds and wallets on raising finance to purchase a new building to base our church in and from which we can hopefully live out the vision we feel called to to the City and people around us.

I am also looking forward to having lunch with and chatting to someone from my church who is a professor at the same university that I work at. We will be chatting about our church and how we can engage it with science and related issues as well as the activity of the local group of Christians in Science which I sit on the committee of.

In light of both of these events I feel it is important to post again a link to a vision I gave here on this log about a year ago for the beneficial interaction of science, scientists and the vision of our church. It is almost a year ago to the day in fact that I first published this and I have to say that unfortunately there hasn't been a lot of positive change since then. There have been good discussions with parts of our church leadership and occasional tipping of the hats which has been good to see and be part of, but by and large nothing has really changed beyond this or opportunities taken nor encouraged.

I fully understand that these sorts of issues are not as engaging for all or feel as immediately important or visible as other issues are for others, but with our re-energised church vision for Edinburgh, a city with a strong science base, I would hope and pray that the implementation of our vision might at some level factor in some or all of the suggestions I first proposed a year ago.

Reaching Our City: Science and Engineering

Scientists Get Religion - Inside Higher Ed

2010-06-17T14:32:00.001+01:00

Article discussing the appointment of Jennifer Wiseman as head of Dialogue on Science, Religion and Ethics program in the States. She is also the head of the Laboratory for Exoplanets and Stellar Astrophysics at the Goddard Space Flight Center at NASA and is a well known speaker on science-religion issues both in the USA and here in the UK.

Scientists Get Religion - Inside Higher Ed

The Fuzzy Boundaries of Science

2010-06-14T18:25:00.001+01:00

Interesting article that raises several good points about what is and isn't considered good science along with why and examples in between.

CultureLab: Tracing the fuzzy boundaries of science

A Common Chorus

2010-06-09T09:50:00.003+01:00

Reviewing 'Reading Genesis After Darwin' (I)

2010-05-10T08:00:00.002+01:00

I don't often review books (although I do read a lot) but over the next few weeks I'll be running a series of posts discussing thoughts of mine that have come from essays in a book that I have recently finished reading as well as reviewing the book as a whole itself.

The book is called Reading Genesis After Darwin and was published late last year. It collects thirteen original papers on a large variety of topics that are about Christian theological, historical and applied engagement with evolutionary biology throughout the centuries.

It's been an interesting and thoughtful read which (as any good book should) has motivated and directed me on to a number of further books and papers on the individual topics covered.The book often engages with these areas in surprising ways, placing emphasis in novel areas I perhaps wouldn't have considered. After a general review of the book I will focus in on four essays in particular which I think have some especially important/useful things to say or highlight:

Genesis and the Scientists (Essay 6), John Hedley Brooke - engagement with Genesis by Christians around the time of Darwin... and others.

All God's Creatures (Essay 9), David Clough - thoughts on the position of animals in theology and humanities mandate in their care.

Male and Female He Created them (Essay 11), Stephen C. Barton - gender and Christianity in the light of evolution, although I will focus mainly on other areas spinning out from this essay on Greek philosophical influences in early Christian views of gender.

Propriety and Trespass: The Drama of Eating (Essay 12), Ellen F. Davies - Christianity, agriculture and the Earth.

N.T. Wright on Genesis

2010-04-24T14:14:00.001+01:00

Being Natural With A Supernatural God

2010-04-21T15:31:00.010+01:00

Robin Parry over on Theological Scribbles has some considered and helpful thoughts on living naturally with the Christian expectation of the supernatural. It is also something that has been discussed a number of times in sermons at my own church recently. Both have contained a lot of interesting ideas that have had me thinking in the last few months.

As Christian believers we live with an expectation that God can and will intervene supernaturally given historical precedents and Biblical validation (e.g. 1 Cor. 12). However practical experience teaches us that we don't expect Him to be doing so all the time for everyone everywhere. If He were to do so it would offer us little opportunity to recognise and rejoice in the natural blessings He provides to us. By placing us in this universe He provides not only material resources but predictability and stability in which to live our lives and also to exercise the authority, responsibility and creativity He gives us as well.

To be a race constantly in ultimate physical need of God's direct supernatural intervention can't be good for our spiritual growth as it constrains us to never move into a deeper relationship with our heavenly Father other than that of master-slave. Christ came to show us this wasn't how things were meant to have been. Although God is our Lord and King He is also seeking to be our friend (John 15:15). Friendship is not about what one person can beg or dispense to the other but is of mutual and self-giving interest.

Living in this unpredictable and anticipatory supernatural manner far better reflects both that level of friendship and also the mandate that humanity has been given to reflect God and His activity throughout creation. It is right that we desire supernatural interventions and blessings but that does not mean that we should become reliant on it - especially when He has already provided abundantly (and sufficiently 2 Cor. 12:8-10) through natural means.

Viewed in this way God's supernatural intervention in the natural world is an incredible event. The unpredictable, rare and joyful appearance of it within the natural order of things creates greater meaning and contrast than if it were to a predictable expectation. Indeed if God's direct intervention was the expected norm how could it be different to the natural? If this were the case these unique moments of heaven touching Earth would be natural themselves and loose their impact and particular power to witness to God's personality and sovereignty.

This also helps us to focus on larger issues of human life as well. When life is tough, when circumstances appear to be beyond us or when we suffer personal tragedy we too often like to shake our fists at God for not intervening directly in matters. We all know in our minds if not our hearts this is not the right response to our God. His providence and care does not step away from us simply because He is not setting off fireworks in the sky. God's presence and active blessing are more often as real and immediate when an arm goes across a pair of crying shoulders or a good meal rests in the stomach of the tired person.

It is also not just in the personal realm that we can demand of God that He must work in instant miracles but also in more theological areas as well. Some parts of the Church for example have overly extended this hyper-miracle making view of God into wider theology and how they view God's creative activity. They demand a God who creates instantly and miraculously only at certain points in history rather than a God who creates continuously and incrementally through natural processes that He constantly ordains and decrees (Collosians 1:15-20).

Giving that our investigations of the universe around us strongly suggest this latter process and that the former can also conflict with Scripture and spiritual development it again doesn't seem healthy or correct to be holding God to a human-constructed miraculous standard of activity.

As a Christian I enthusiastically accept the supernatural as being possible with our God. I don't think though that it is good or helpful when we cultivate an atmosphere of over-reliant supernatureality (And yes, I can make up words too! :-) ) when God has already gifted the universe and encouraged ourselves to deliver His miracles.

Ted Talk: Michael Specter: The danger of science denial

2010-04-14T13:45:00.002+01:00

Michael Specter gives a solid message for us all and for our churches in particular (in my opinion anyway) in this talk. He illuminates the real-life need for science and technology to be used as effectively as possible for the benefit of all peoples around the globe and how this needs to go hand in hand with a positive and committed view of science.

Indeed he argues convincingly that to do so is an essential moral requirement for a people who might dare to claim to be dangerously proactive about caring for and loving others.

Which is what we Christians often like to claim about ourselves.

Scientists in the Pews

2010-04-08T17:02:00.003+01:00

Helpful article over on the Washington Post website echoing many of my own thoughts.

I particularly like her encouragements towards the end for church leaders to make good use of and to integrate the scientists within their congregations as scientists more.

Who Creates?

2010-04-04T08:00:00.002+01:00

Who creates the surf crashing onto the shore?
The wave that begun far out to sea.

Who creates the wave riding across the vast ocean?
The wind and the Earth give birth to them.

Who creates the force that gives birth to them?
Our distant Sun in its mighty power.

Who creates that roaring Sun in all its glory?
Primordial gas birthed at the beginning of all.

Who created that gas all those ages ago?
The Nothing that became All.

Who created All from Nothing?

He who provides a shore for the surf,
He who curves every wave,
He who upholds this world,
He who nourishes life with fire,
He who calls forth us from the void.

He who enables all,
His will creates all.

He who created you.

Winner of £1m Templeton prize attacks ‘fundamentalism’ of Dawkins - Times Online

2010-03-29T23:40:00.001+01:00

Winner of £1m Templeton prize attacks ‘fundamentalism’ of Dawkins - Times Online

Here Is Your God

2010-03-17T08:00:00.001Z

I was recently asked to give some comments from a Christian perspective to a PhD student who was interested in how the Immanence of God was perceived by Christians. After looking up exactly what she meant by that (it is not really the way I'd describe experiencing the presence of God, but think there could be a lot the grander language it uses) I sent her the below which I thought might of interest to readers here as well.

-----

I think firstly that there is no single way of considering the Immanence of God within the Bible or Christianity as a whole. The Bible records the development of pre-Jewish, Jewish and then Christian thought on God but this also extends beyond the Bible with the writings of subsequent theologians down to the centuries with various interpretations and ideas coming to the fore.

For example the early Jews and those in the Babylonian exile period emphasised the ultimate supremacy of God against the gods of the other people around them, with this then developing on to the strong monotheism of the time of Jesus. As a scientist another prominent example for me is the mechanistic interpretation of God's actions in the world (including the acts of initial creation) that became popular in some circles during the rise of the Industrial Revolution in the West and which has given rise to the popular-level 'conflict' between evolution and so called creationism which really boils down to different viewpoints on how God interacts with His creation rather than any actual scientific evidence.

It can be seen that many of these viewpoints of God's creativity can then be placed within social, cultural and political situations of the time in which they were constructed. Although this doesn't negate them in any way (although other factors might) I think it helps us to balance them out a bit more, holding them in cohesion and seeing how one view point is not necessarily the only one with validity or supremacy.

That said there are strong themes on God's immanence running throughout the Bible and Christianity that may help focus some thoughts for you.

Firstly there are the obvious examples of God in some way manifesting His presence physically that are scattered throughout the Bible although prominent in the Old Testament. Often this is used as a dramatic and deliberate sign for a group of people (the pillar of fire and smoke leading the Israelites in Exodus 13:20-22 for example) or more personal if still dramatic (Moses and the burning bush of Exodus 3:1-3 or the conversion of Saul (Acts 9:1-17)). Often they are personal and very ordinary at a surface level (Abraham's visitors in Genesis 18), or subtle (Elijah encountering God in 1 Kings 19:11-13), direct (God talks with Gideon, Judges 6:11-26) but in all these encounters God's presence is real and intrudes itself on the world. Sometimes He is not seen or experienced directly but works through others who ritually display a mark of God's presence as a reminder of Him in their lives (the story of Samson and his long hair in Judges).

In many ways this embodiment of the presence of God is taking to it's ultimate level in the incarnation of God the Son, Jesus Christ. However this shouldn't be seen simply as another intrusion of God on His creation but rather God becoming a part of His creation (John 1:6-9, 1:14 and 1:32-34). As my pastor is fond of saying "God put on human skin and moved into the neighbourhood."

For Christians it is fundamental that Jesus be both fully human and fully God for his sacrifice on the cross and subsequent resurrection to have the spiritual meaning that we have them to have. Over the centuries there has been a lot of ink written about how much he was of one, how much of the other, or if either at all, but the New Testament makes it clear that Jesus believed himself to be both (God by the forgiveness of human sin - a practice reserved to the one who has been sinned against i.e. God (Luke 5:19-21, Mark 2:9-11) - and also by his reliance on God the Father's power rather than any he might possesses himself (another topic for debate!!) to perform healings and miracles as signs for the people as to who he was and whom had sent him (Matthew 13:54-55, John 14:10-11, Philippians 2:6-8)). Even after his resurrection although he was clearly different to before in some way (his close friends don't initially recognise him (Luke 24:13-35, John 20:10-18) there is still an aspect of real humanity about him (Luke 24:36-49, John 21:12-14) that he can choose to reveal or indeed is still a necessary part of him. This is why Jesus is often called (I/E)mmanuel - God with us.

The presence and immanence of God is not exclusively viewed so directly/physically though. Their are other less direct ways that I'll highlight couple of to give you a flavour.

You've already rightly pointed out Luke 17:21 as being a pointer that the immanence of God can be seen in different ways. The Kingdom of God is not yet as Christ has yet to return to establish his final reign, but it is also now and today as Christ has been and now dwells in the hearts of all believers. If we see evidence of the Kingdom we see evidence of Christ.

What is the Kingdom? In many ways it is not a physical kingdom of peace, righteousness and justice bought about suddenly and miraculously (which is what many 1st century Jews were anticipating and why what Jesus did was rejected by many of them), but rather it is a physical kingdom made up of people attempting to live with the mind and heart of Jesus and a change of self, culture and structures around us here today that then express the values, attributes and consequences of the presence of Jesus.

A read through of the Gospels shows that these are things like love of God, people, charity, mercy, compassion, patience, tolerance, a giving up of self for the good of others etc (The Sermon on the Mount - Matthew 5 for example and John 3:16 most famously perhaps) with the consequences listed in Luke 7:21-23. Interestingly, historically, it has not been how these objectives are achieved (whether by miracles, medicine, care for one another), but rather it is more important that they are accomplished at all by a renewed sense of spirit and self that more and more reflects the character of Jesus.

Where ever the poor are fed, the needy provided for, where there is real community there we believe Christ to be shown and present (Matthew 18:20, contrasted with Deuteronomy 19:15 emphasising the Jewish cultural importance of a grouping of people to be necessary for good witness). In this way the church (is meant to) manifest the presence of Jesus physically in the world. We are called upon to be the hands, eyes, mouth and feet of Jesus in our world today. We don't always get it right, but we're meant to try and live lives that model Christ for others so that they can see who he is as well as delivering positive benefit to the world and our fellow beings.

Another indirect encounter with God comes from the Christian viewpoint on the world and the Universe around us. For the Christian the the whole of reality is dependent on the constant and concious will of God (Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 11:3, John 1:3, Job 38:1-10). Since humanity is a part of that creation we are a part of the ever present purposes of God's will, but even further humanity is said to be created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:25-27) and charged with authority over creation, not to dominate but to nurture, steward and co-create. In this way humanity is called to participate in the plans and purposes of God, again bringing his presence and intentions into the world.

Another way is through the presence of the Holy Spirit living in the lives of believers. The Holy Spirit is believed by (nearly all) Christians today to be as much a part of God as the Father or Jesus, so his presence is the presence of God. Promised directly to his disciples by Jesus at his Ascension (Acts 1:4-5), but active and known throughout the history of the Bible (Luke 1:35, Luke 3:16, Daniel 5:11, etc) the Holy Spirit helps Christians to live their lives more and more like that of Jesus and also enables Christians to act in both normal and sometimes abnormal ways and to help build the Kingdom of God here on Earth (1 Corinthians 12:1 - 14:25).

Balanced with the Spirit is also the Bible, the Word of God. Christians believe that God has communicated with humanity through it, explaining his intentions and will for creation and salvation in a recorded manner - although written in many different ways and styles. There is of course discussion on how direct/indirect this communication is and understandings derived from it should be partnered by history, science and other ways of understanding to attempt to understand its original purpose or meaning.

James 2:14-26 illustrates well the balance that needs to be taken between the Spirit and the Word (and indeed all these other ways of knowing and experiencing God's presence for the Christian). Faith (the Word) without Deeds (motivated by the Spirit) and vice versa are both to be scorned. The Spirit (as understood by people experiencing it) on its own can too often bring disorder and misdirection as there is no restraint on how people think they are experiencing Him and the Word without Spirit brings legalism, rigidity and a slavery to Law in our lives that Christ came to set us free from.

I think the overriding aspect of all of these however is that they all contain some aspect of God's presence that shows that it is immediate and active and related to our own purpose/relationship to that presence.

Body Part Printing

2010-03-16T13:09:00.001Z

http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15543683

Christians in Science Northern Conference - Abstracts

2010-03-10T16:00:00.000Z

The abstracts for the upcoming Christians in Science conference here in Edinburgh are now available online here. All being well there should be recordings of the talks themselves available soon after the conference.

They make interesting reading, even if you're not coming to the conference. They give a nice snap shot into the thinking of current scientists and theologians active in the relationship between science and Christianity and how they practically relate to and see the world around them in the context of living out the Christian gospel message and mission.

Ken Miller just can’t win - News Features - Boston Phoenix

2010-03-08T00:07:00.001Z

Ken Miller just can’t win - News Features - Boston Phoenix

Science and the General Election

2010-03-04T08:00:00.001Z

The latest issue of People and Science from the British Science Association carries three brief statements from the main parties in the UK on their plans for and positions on science if they get elected.

Looking at it I think I prefer some Conservative with a dash of Liberal. Amusingly Labour's left hand seems to think they will 'maintain' their support for science while there right hand brings in sweeping cuts. Still it makes it easier to decide who not to vote for at least.

Hunting ExoPlanets

2010-03-02T15:00:00.001Z

The Institute of Physics has produced a glossy summary on the techniques and technologies being used to hunt for solar systems around other stars. Nice and clear explanations along with some tentative thoughts on where the next generation of telescope technology may take us in terms of our understanding of the universe and our place within it.

The summary can be downloaded here.

Edinburgh International Science Festival 2010

2010-02-19T16:00:00.002Z

The programme for this year's Science Festival here in Edinburgh is now out!

There's quite a lot of interesting talks and activities for all ages so have a flick through the programme and you're bound to find something of interest. I may have to give the science singles evening a miss, but could well go to the bovine dissection. Says it all really.

If you've not visited anything in the Festival before make the effort to this year! Living in Edinburgh gives us brilliant access to world class events like the Science Festival so it would be a shame not to take advantage of that and join in. If you're not a science fan flick through the programme and be surprised at the range of events available - I have no doubt you'll be pleasantly surprised!

Thanks to various Edinburgh organisations and conference being active in the city at the time there are a few talks on science, religion and ethics floating about throughout the two weeks the festival is running. Specifically:

The Naturalness of Religion and Unnaturalness of Theology Lecture by Dr Justin Barrett (Cognitive Psychology, University of Oxford) 8 April (8pm) • 1 hour 45 mins • Free (wooo!)

Do We Need To Naturalise Religion? Lecture by Professor Lluis Oviedo (Theological Anthropology, Antonianum University, Rome) 10 April (11am) • 2 hours • Free

(Both organised as part of the 13th European Conference on Science and Religion that is running in Edinburgh at the time (organised by the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology (ESSSAT) and the Science and Religion Forum. Both a bit hard core as well perhaps.)

God, Science and Global Warming - What is the role of science in humanity’s response to the ecological crisis? The former co-chair of the Nobel Prize-winning International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), John Houghton, discusses one of the major issues facing us today and what role faith has to play in it.
15th April (7pm) • 1 hour • £7/£5 • Informatics

And special nod to 'It Is Rocket Science' which is a comedy show by Helen Keen that was at the Fringe a couple summers back. Two showings available this year on the 9th and 10th of April.

Missional Science from Q

2010-02-16T18:05:00.002Z

The Q folk have an interesting essay up on their website entitled 'Science and the Evangelical Mission in America' by Ken Wilson, a pastor in Ann Arbor over in the States.

The essay examines the negative consequences to the spread of the gospel when it is presented outwards from within a Church culture that opposes the discoveries of modern science towards a society that accepts those discoveries. The author suggests (with good reason) that this is the situation with most evangelical churches in America at present. I would also suggest that this is similar to the UK situation although here in the UK it is not necessarily as much of a part of public politics and society as it is in the States.

It is a good essay and very helpful to hear the perspective of an 'everyday' pastor on the issue of science and the Church. Wilson suggests that evangelical churches certainly need to move themselves away from the tacit non-acceptance of science of their recent history and into an acceptance based approach that is more in line with a thorough understanding of the Bible and creation rather than out of a spirit of recent traditionalism.

He suggests 4-levels of engagement at which evangelical Churches might accept those with a positive position towards modern science:

"Level 1: Tolerated Minority
In these churches, people with blue sensibility are met with little direct confrontation regarding their scientific views, yet there is no doubt that they are in the cultural minority. Those who have blue sensibility perspectives on science tend to leave them at home when they come to church. They are part of these churches in spite of their views and they are extremely unlikely to invite any friends with similar views to attend their church.

Level 2: Accepted Minority
The pastoral staff and some key leaders actively support the blue sensibility person’s right to hold their views on scientific matters, even though they may disagree with these views. The church leadership however, clearly and openly views these matters as secondary and not an integral part of the Christian message. They don’t host young earth creation workshops or spread climate-change-is-a-hoax emails. Level 2 churches are able to retain some “already committed Christian science people” (for example the science friendly spouse of a devout believer committed to the church), but these are also unlikely to invite like-minded friends to church.

Level 3: Integrated Minority
In these churches there is open if infrequent vocal acceptance for science friendly views along with ministry opportunities that correspond to these views, such as environmental stewardship or creation care ministries. The pastor and key leaders hold or support science friendly views themselves so that these perspectives are respected in the congregation, even if a majority does not hold them. The culture of such churches represents a significant missional advantage because those with blue sensibility perspectives will more freely invite like-minded friends to church. Over time the church culture may shift to include a majority of blue sensibility people while remaining accepting and friendly toward red sensibility people.

The scale of course, assumes that there is a Level 0 category in which blue views on science are not tolerated at all."

I would add a level 4 category to the list (Level 4: Integrated Majority) where the claims of modern science are taken at face value. We take the step of intentionally supporting and trusting that which science and scientists bring to our consideration. Although aware of the inherent uncertainty in scientific knowledge we balance that with an appreciation of the rigour in which it is arrived at. We enjoy and rejoice in what it offers our understanding of God, creation and our place and responsibilities within it.

(As an aside I would say my own church hovers somewhere between Level 1 and 2, although closer to 2).

I think Wilson may however have an over prioritisation on simply making our churches more comfortable and acceptable to those with different viewpoints at the surface level rather than actually challenging erroneous viewpoints. On the one hand this is a good thing as it would certainly help attract new folk to the church and to Jesus alongside supporting Church unity between new and current believers, but I can't help feel slightly unsettled at this as ultimately unless there is a real difference in the core culture of the church involved this attraction is unlikely to last or to be honestly sustainable.

Although in some non-critical issues (like tithing, fasting, worship style, drums, hats, flower arranging, the pastor's waistcoat, etc) there is certainly room for companionable diversity of opinion, in the areas of science that Wilson discusses what we think really matters. What we think on some issues not only shapes our theologies, but also our thinking and consequently our actions in the world around us.

If our inclination is to see science negatively we will resist advances it offers that can improve our lives, both rich and poor, while at the same time fostering a culture of mistrust that can (and has) spread into other areas of understanding. If however we can promote an atmosphere of trust and joy in the discoveries of science it becomes more likely that will see it as an acceptable part of the solution to problems we might face as well as enabling us to understand creation better and with less fear. In this view a grasp and trust of science becomes a not only a responsibility but a demand on our divinely appointed roles as co-creators with the universe.

There is certainly a balance to be had when seeking to ensure we uphold one another in love and unity of spirit, after all we all approach different issues from a multitude of backgrounds and understanding. I think though that there are or should be times when that balance cannot be equal and must be challenged when it has unhelpful or even harmful outcomes. If that balance must be skewed away from what we might previously have considered safe and 'Christian' then it will be personally unsettling, but maybe necessary for both ourselves, those outside the church and for the betterment of our care and understanding of creation.

An acceptance of science isn't just central to making our churches more attractive, it is essential to fulfilling our role in God's creation.

ID Impact

2010-02-10T18:00:00.002Z

First Things has a well considered article on the impact and influence that the Intelligent Design movement has had on science, culture and the relationship between science and religion. Some nice quotations as well from some of the earliest Christian writers on how they viewed the relationship between Christianity and the natural world.

Interesting article and a wide variety of interesting comments after as well.

R2 - Robonaut

2010-02-08T19:35:00.002Z

Because I'm still coughing like a... cough machine. And this is pretty amazing anyway.

How To Report The News

2010-02-05T11:55:00.004Z

This was sent to me by Eating British. As well as being funny it plugs a hole in my blogging due to illness and work on an extensive next post. After viewing go and visit EB's Blog - he talks roast!

How To Report The News - Watch more Funny Videos

iPad

2010-01-29T08:00:00.001Z

While not exactly a fan of Apple's marketing methods and ego I do appreciate that they make good products.

I'm just not sure about the iPad. Yet.

In the meantime you can decide for yourselves...

The iPad - watch more funny videos

Reviewing Interpretations

2010-01-27T08:00:00.003Z

The BioLogos Foundation has a fascinating paper online by the historian Mark Noll examining the the growth of a literal reading and interpretation of the Bible over time throughout American history. Of special interest is how it was both a product and a shaper of that country's society and culture right up to the infamous 'Culture Wars' of the present - which has ultimately resulted in that view spreading and coming to dominate in many parts of the Church around the world.

Interestingly, that while understandable within the particular context it developed in, this interpretation appears to be in marked contrast to the the more comprehensive viewpoint that developed in European theological circles during the same period which made use of the developing tools of historical and literally criticism alongside theological consideration. This allowed a much richer and more able interpretative methodology to develop.

It is however the American model of interpretation that has come to dominate worldwide especially in the Western Church. Viewed historically this is not necessarily due to any particular superiority of one view compared to the other, but rather more to do with changes in global society as America's position as a world leader in multiple arenas in general developed as Europe's began to fade.

Well worth a read for anyone interested in Christianity and culture or history.

The Known Universe

2010-01-24T08:00:00.000Z

Thanks to the American Museum of Natural History (and NASA Astronomy Photo of the Day for the pointer).

Smart Fish

2010-01-22T08:00:00.001Z

Stingrays use tools and are capable of problem solving.

Article / Paper.

Awesome.

Integrating the Church and the Future

2010-01-20T08:00:00.003Z

As many folk know I have an interest in the interaction of Christianity and emerging discoveries and technologies, specifically those that might reshape our thinking of life, spiritual and physical. I believe that these are important issues for the wider Church to begin considering outside of purely academic circles as they hold great potential to become pastorally and community relevant issues over the coming decades and centuries.

If we in the Church are to avoid our usual performance of unthoughtful reaction to novel situations rather than undertaken proactive prior consideration then we need to consider these issues more actively. We need to take responsibility for training Church leadership and members adequately so that we do not just solely default responsibility for such topics onto either academic theologians (to whom the Church needs to learn more from and appreciate more) or into the hands of agenda driven public Christian pressure groups (to whom the Church tends to turn to at present for expert opinion rather than actually to experts themselves).

Unnecessary and negatively framed past performances (genetically modified organisms, reproductive technologies, stem cells, etc) and the subsequent public dismissive reaction has driven deeper a division between the Church and the non-Churched in general.

This has two undesirable effect. Firstly it hampers the spread of the gospel through Christian living and direct evangelism as the Church becomes unreasonably out of step with the society around it. Not for good or responsible reasons but simply out of an effort to be different as being different is often equated with being more 'Christian' than norm of society about us. It also diverts efforts to live out of Kingdom values by the Church by unnecessarily diverting resources and support away from technologies that can be of great benefit to both people and the planet. I think the Church does have genuine and valid statements to make on these issues and they often can be in apparent contrast to secular thinking. However too often we make statements and form policies and attitudes not based on sound theology or informed understanding but simply for the sake of being collectively different or out of a fear of the unknown.

Over the next few years I aim to deliberately be thinking more of these issues through and writing about them here as well as perhaps more formally elsewhere. I would also like to think (hope!) I'll have time to intentionally raise these issues more in Church circles as well.

To help frame my (ambitious) thoughts I have decided to focus in on a few areas. Some of these have been discussed in various parts of the academic literature before but there is still a low public awareness of the very interesting discussions and conversations going on around them.

The Future Community of Believers - Some generalised thinking on the composition of the Church as the beings making up the society around us may diversify and expand beyond current public expectations. How do we worship, learn and support each other together when we may communicate, sense and experience the world in radically different ways?
The Nature of Sin and Redemption Applied to Non-Human Intelligences - At the heart of the Christian story of God, humanity and creation, but how do we apply that story beyond solely the human entity?
Physical Immortality and Eternal Life - How do we relate the results of life extension technologies and possible physical immortality to Christian thinking on the Resurrection of Christ and the Saints? How could this effect our understanding of the Restored and Redeemed Creation of the End Times?
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Christian Thinking on Gender - How do we integrate artificial lifeforms into Christian thinking on gender and gender roles when gender is not applicable to AI? How does thinking on AI and gender effect our current thinking on gender in humanity?
The Human Race Beyond Earth - How do we construct a functional galactic Church community when humanity begins to expand off-world and beyond the solar system? How do we apply principles of stewardship and environmental responsibility throughout the arena of space itself?
The Redeemed Universal Creation - What does it mean for Creation to be redeemed and restored in light of the modern 'expanded' understanding of the physical universe? What does it mean for extraterrestrial life (intelligent or not) to be included in this restoration?

Although these are indeed fairly novel examples to be thinking on I think that's actually constructive to do so for the many situations we face today as well as being prepared for tomorrow. It should also be fairly obvious from that list that there are a number of areas relevant to discussions going on at present in the Church. Even consideration of these topics as thought experiments may have some immediate application to those discussions.

I've found that it is often when you push an idea or thinking on a topic into untapped limits of thinking that you can gauge more fully whether that idea really does hold truth in the arenas you are already comfortable with it in. Since we are called to gladly pursue truth and right understanding as part of our mandate as co-creators in this universe I think it is certainly useful and wise to test our ideas to their limits, reforming them as necessary. If our conclusions have practical application as well at some point then even better.

Should be fun!

Art Science Online

2010-01-18T08:00:00.001Z

One of the final year students in my department clearly has too much time on his hands as he has been finding time to surf the web. Bad 'David' as we shall call him.

Still, they are nice finds:

Captured Lightening over at the Telegraph website

and Complexification

Loving Intelligent Design

2010-01-16T08:00:00.005Z

Looking at my blog stats its been nice to see that some folk have been taking the time to read through my (long) post on creation and intelligent design (ID) last weekend. I don't particularly find discussion of these topics interesting as they seem to continuously retread old ground and go round in circles while also providing some of the best examples of Christians being unchristian to one another, but sometimes you do come across some good writings on the topic that are worth bringing to wider attention.

I am therefore more than happy to highlight the following three blog posts over on Thomas Jay Oord's blog. He approaches the topic as a non-scientist but also as a professional theologian and I think he has some fresh and honest insights on ID and Christianity because of this.

A Theologian Evaluates Intelligent Design - Part 1 of 3

He discusses what he likes about both ID and the movement that drives it forward in Christian circles. I have to say I agree with most of what is said here, but I think we would both conclude that the positives mentioned here are not only non-exclusive to IDers but rather should be universal amongst all Christian theists.

A Theologian Evaluates Intelligent Design - Part 2 of 3

Some good thoughts that touch on a variety of issues on why he doesn't like ID ranging from both the basic science involved to the other areas such as school education that ID deliberately seeks to play a strong role in.

A Theologian Evaluates Intelligent Design - Part 3 of 3

He echoes many of the same thoughts that I have had on the inconsistency between creation involving ID and the nature of God's creativity as portrayed throughout the Bible. However what he also says and what I really like is he relates this back to other aspects of God's personality and nature such as His unconquerable love and respect for creation and His timeless desire for relationship with free individuals within it. Great stuff.

Please have a read through of the links above - they are an extremely wise and gracious collection of thoughts on this topic and highly recommended.

War for Cybertron

2010-01-14T08:00:00.000Z

I'm not a big gamer but I like a lot of the visuals and concepts in this... the various scales of the characters, the functional nature of the environment (blast shields and roads constructed as needed by users for example) and just the sheer otherness of the non-biological landscape. Great stuff.

More Transformers: War for Cybertron Info

Wow

2010-01-12T09:00:00.000Z

Fresh images from the repaired and upgraded Hubble Space Telecope showing a starscape containing some of the oldest galaxies ever imaged.